I was very confused when I saw this lens announced. Then, I realized that the very excellent and wildly popular Tamron 28-75 is not available for L-Mount. I think they built this lens with L-Mount in mind while also being aware that they will probably get a few sales here and there on E-Mount, too. But, I think this is primarily an L-amount release. If L-Mount didn’t exist, I don’t think this lens would either.
I spent a good while comparing 2.8-zooms, and ended up ordering the Sigma 28-70. Why? Size/weight, and I’m not particularly intrested in wide angle shots. Granted, for selfie-videos a wide is needed, and for that I found a Samyang 18/2.8 second hand. I’m covered 👍
@@johnadams3038 I ordered it in November last year and amazon had extended return policy till 31st Jan 2021. So, decoded that it is not serving my purpose :)
Most of what I review is short term loaners, and, since no one has used this lens long term, you are asking a question that cannot be answered at this time.
That's a complicated question for me. I've owned the Tamron for a couple of years and it has served me very well. I would prioritize the Sigma mostly if I were concerned with traveling as compact and light as possible.
Thank you for the review. Just bought this Sigma 28-70 lens for its light weight and small size even the larger sigma 24-70 is a better performer and 4mm in wide angle is a big difference. Bought it on sale plus a free B+W filter, so it’s a great deal, plan to use it on an A7C, hope I won’t regret.
Thanks for this first quick review. I was wondering what the difference is as I used both the Tamron and the Sigma Art before. I could see if you are into backpacking and like to bring along a zoom, this new Sigma could be it .... but then again the Tamron has better weather sealing... Anyway, cheers from LA.
Fair enough, but designing a zoom that goes that wide and then that long with that aperture value is extremely difficult. That's why there isn't one on the market.
Hi Dustin! I would like to know if there is much difference in image quality between this sigma 28-70 and the zeiss 24-70 f4?... in my country the zeiss costs half the price of the sigma... is the zeiss worth it in 2022 ? i have an a7c. Thanks and regards
Another great review! 28-70mm's tradeoffs seem worth it, for the convenience. I'm glad they're willing to expand their market so there's more choice for different people's needs. Personally I'm very happy to sacrifice 24mm to achieve this kind of small package. How many shots do people make at 28mm and then go "Damn! I really needed 24mm, I have to throw this picture out!" Very few probably.
That's true to a certain extent, though I've certainly been in that situation when trying to shoot an event where I couldn't back up enough to get everything I wanted in the frame.
There's a significant difference between 28mm & 24mm. There are better options to get there, a prime 24 or a wa zoom. I personally shoot wide or long, so a standard zoom is not for me.
@@ryanbeer5262 yup to each their own. I wouldn’t define it as “significant”. Again how many pictures need to be thrown out between 28mm vs 24mm? If you’re a pro shooting wide, you’d have a dedicated lens.
The only real reason to get the Sigma for E-mount is if you demand the absolute smallest option.. and maybe a hair better less "busy" bokeh. If that`s not you get the tammy, would much rather trust it in harsher conditions.
Thanks for your great reviews Dustin, one of the best tests here! Hope at some point you will also produce Nikon Z content, it would for sure help your channel to grow as well.
The reason I ask is that I thought if you have a full frame and the option of crop sensor, you'd get an "extra" reach/zoom/angle since the conversion is x1.6 can you please show us sample picture?same place,same angle but one shot on full frame and the second on crop sensor (same camera & lense)
Sigma used that direction always when developing for DSLRs (it matched Canon's rotation, but not Nikons). For some reason they have stuck with it when developing for Sony and Leica, though I think that both companies rotate the opposite direction. That's a valid point to raise, though.
@@DustinAbbottTWI if it is your only zoom no big deal. It would be worse on a telephoto zoom used for action photos. I wonder how pricier it would be to make 2 versions. They should honor the customs of the mount it is made for.
Thank you for the review :) I have the good ol' Tammy, and the only thing that drives me towards the Sigma, is the size of this lens, as I have A7C and in my case size matters, smaller the better (for travels and vlogging). But since I travel a lot (or at least, used to before covid) in Asia, humid conditions and rain, the Tammy offers better sealings. So maybe I will look for the new Tammy 28-75 G2, which is actually a tad smaller and has a new focus technology (which I hope is better in the regards of focus breathing in video. We'll see). Thanks again
This is a real tough decision but I think I will go with the new Sigma. I travel a ton and only carry two lenses, the Tammy 17-28mm and the Tammy 28-75mm. I got the A7C so the body and the two lenses can fit nicely in my very small camera bag (5L) as I travel the world. However, that extra 17mm length on the Tammy 28-75mm can be annoying. The 17-28 is relatively the same size as the new Sigma 28-70mm which would fit perfectly. I hope I don’t regret my decision as I do shoot in light rain and beaches sometime and the new Sigma isn’t truly weather sealed! I guess another option is to keep the Tamron 28-75mm and get a slightly bigger bag, but that also defeats the travel light philosophy. Le Sigh, so many first world problems. Lol. Also, another great review, why I subscribed. Thanks.
Your case study is one I considered as a valid reason where someone might choose the Sigma over the Tamron. I'm not sure one could make that decision based purely on performance alone.
Don't want to nitpick but two minor corrections. First of all in your first scene you call it the "sigma 24-70" lens. Then later you say it's 70% lighter. Which makes it 56% of the weight of the bigger brother or 44% lighter.
Hi Ryan, your first point is true, though there is an on screen correct. Secondly, 835 is a 77.659574468085% increase of 470. Math can be tricky depending on how you set up your calculation.
@@DustinAbbottTWI that makes the art 77% more heavy than the contemporary but not the contemporary 77% lighter 🙃. I agree that math can be funny sometimes! Regardless, wonderful comparison as always!
Have yet to listen to the full review. Have been very strong Sigma supporter since introduction of original Art glass. Am concerned that this, and other lens also announced are for Sony E mount. Trust Sigma release these lens for other mainstream brands.
I would like to know if the new Sony kit lens (28-60mm) has a comparable performance to the Sigma 28-70 (particularly at f5,6 and f8). Compactness (as a travel photographer) is very important to me, but also quality. Thanks for your excellent reviews.
Obviously, virtually all of these comments are personal and relate to the type of photography, comment posters shoot. In my case, FWIW, I would really, really miss that loss of 4 mm at the wide-angle end. Would happily accept the loss of the 4 mm at the zoom end. Does the reduction of the wide angle focal range from 24 to 28 account for the really, really significant reduction in body size and weight of this lens compared to the Sigma 24-70 2.8? If so, and I clearly know little of lens design, if I was to purchase this or the Tamron lens, would need a wide angle, eg. Samyang/Rokinion manual focus lens for the loss of that, to me, very important wide-angle view.
Hi Robert, yes, excluding that 4mm is what allows for the size reduction. The Tamron utilized that same philosophy, though Tamron did a better job of also reducing vignette and distortion by cutting off that extra width. So, if you need 24mm, the Sigma 24-70mm is the better option.
In what way? You could mount it on APS-C already. An equivalent focal range on APS-C would be something like 18-46mm, which is not particularly attractive. An 18-50 or 18-55mm is more likely, but that wouldn't be an adapted lens
As others said you can already use this on their apsc cameras. They use the same mount. But why would you? Get the sigma 18-35 f1.8 for your apsc camera. It's a gorgeous and very useful lens.
I saw the Chris Frost review of this lens and on his copy, 70 mm was awful; not usable for me. The Tamron I had was absolutely amazing - regret selling it
If your decision is bnased on the fact that one lens is 14mm shorter than the other, well I think you need to garb hold of yourself by the shoulders and give yourself a shake..............
The sigma is better looking but the Tamron at the end may be the better buy. It would be nice to see a few real world photos to compare them. Same portrait subject and landscape. What is the color rendering difference? There are factors that matter most than absolute sharpness. Color rendition, transition of focus, contrast etc. great review.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks for the review. I was wondering if you had compared them. In the end, better overall rendition may be better than absolute sharpness.
@@HK-rc1fg I doubt the Panasonic 24-60 is full frame. And if it is full frame I doubt it is f/2.8 the whole way through. I don’t think you understand your optics. No such thing as a small 24-60mm f/2.8 full frame. That is why they make 28mm to start with, to stay small.
It Seems Sony Lenses actually Suck... coz all third party are afraid to make Z mount or RF mount lenses coz they r really Great which they cant match......
I'm afraid none of that is true. Sony has a relatively open source platform that anyone can develop for. Canon and Nikon have (thus far) been very closed and have not given any access to their focus algorithms. We will see that third party development eventually, but it has nothing to do with Sigma or Tamron being intimidated by Canon or Nikon's lenses.
I agree on this. In an industry where sales keep dropping year by year, Canon and Nikon can't afford to be too protectionist. Sony has proven that having a more open platform encourages development and market share. Nikon in particular has a lot to lose, as they have the least cash reserves and smallest market share, and I'm not sure there is any area where they are considered the innovation leader at the moment.
The quality of your reviews is unmatched.
Thank you very much.
Congrats for 100k subscribers.
😊
Thank you so much 😀
Yes, Dustin, well done!
I was very confused when I saw this lens announced. Then, I realized that the very excellent and wildly popular Tamron 28-75 is not available for L-Mount. I think they built this lens with L-Mount in mind while also being aware that they will probably get a few sales here and there on E-Mount, too. But, I think this is primarily an L-amount release. If L-Mount didn’t exist, I don’t think this lens would either.
I think there's some truth to this.
Congratulations on 100k subscribers. Well deserved!
Thank you very much!
best reviews on youtube as usual!
Wow, thanks!
I spent a good while comparing 2.8-zooms, and ended up ordering the Sigma 28-70. Why? Size/weight, and I’m not particularly intrested in wide angle shots. Granted, for selfie-videos a wide is needed, and for that I found a Samyang 18/2.8 second hand. I’m covered 👍
Sounds fair.
great review, I sent back my sigma 24-70 for the weight reasons. Glad to see Sigma taking cue from my video 😜
Cue them up to release the 70-200 F2.8 and the 50mm F1.4 DN, then!
How do you just send back lenses you have used??
@@johnadams3038 I ordered it in November last year and amazon had extended return policy till 31st Jan 2021. So, decoded that it is not serving my purpose :)
@@DustinAbbottTWI I am waiting for an affordable 70-200 f2.8 from them. That would be a good lens.
@@IncrementalNova Interesting, I don’t think we have that in EU. Do you get back the full sum of money you paid?
So does this one have the same dust issue that the 24-70 has?
Most of what I review is short term loaners, and, since no one has used this lens long term, you are asking a question that cannot be answered at this time.
Overall, would you suggest this over the Tamron?
That's a complicated question for me. I've owned the Tamron for a couple of years and it has served me very well. I would prioritize the Sigma mostly if I were concerned with traveling as compact and light as possible.
So which one better with the new sony a7IV for video
Which one of what, exactly?
@@DustinAbbottTWI sigma Or sony 24-70 g.master
Thank you for the review. Just bought this Sigma 28-70 lens for its light weight and small size even the larger sigma 24-70 is a better performer and 4mm in wide angle is a big difference. Bought it on sale plus a free B+W filter, so it’s a great deal, plan to use it on an A7C, hope I won’t regret.
That's a nice pairing on the a7C
Thanks for this first quick review. I was wondering what the difference is as I used both the Tamron and the Sigma Art before. I could see if you are into backpacking and like to bring along a zoom, this new Sigma could be it .... but then again the Tamron has better weather sealing... Anyway, cheers from LA.
Glad it was helpful!
Great review! I'll be buying (in protest lol) would've be nice to have a compact 20/24-60mm f2.8
Fair enough, but designing a zoom that goes that wide and then that long with that aperture value is extremely difficult. That's why there isn't one on the market.
thank you for the effort and sharing. BIG thumbs up.
My pleasure.
Do you think the sigma 28-70 on a fullframe outperforms in sharpness and IQ, in non low light situations, the sony 16-55 on an apsc body? Thanks!
I've not tested the Sony 16-55, so unfortunately I can't answer that.
Hi Dustin! I would like to know if there is much difference in image quality between this sigma 28-70 and the zeiss 24-70 f4?... in my country the zeiss costs half the price of the sigma... is the zeiss worth it in 2022 ? i have an a7c. Thanks and regards
I haven't tested the 24-70 F4, so I can't give you an informed opinion unfortunately.
Another great review! 28-70mm's tradeoffs seem worth it, for the convenience. I'm glad they're willing to expand their market so there's more choice for different people's needs. Personally I'm very happy to sacrifice 24mm to achieve this kind of small package. How many shots do people make at 28mm and then go "Damn! I really needed 24mm, I have to throw this picture out!" Very few probably.
That's true to a certain extent, though I've certainly been in that situation when trying to shoot an event where I couldn't back up enough to get everything I wanted in the frame.
There's a significant difference between 28mm & 24mm. There are better options to get there, a prime 24 or a wa zoom. I personally shoot wide or long, so a standard zoom is not for me.
@@ryanbeer5262 yup to each their own. I wouldn’t define it as “significant”. Again how many pictures need to be thrown out between 28mm vs 24mm? If you’re a pro shooting wide, you’d have a dedicated lens.
The only real reason to get the Sigma for E-mount is if you demand the absolute smallest option.. and maybe a hair better less "busy" bokeh. If that`s not you get the tammy, would much rather trust it in harsher conditions.
That's a solid take on this.
Do you think sigma will make a lens similar to the 28-200mm tamron...
I don't know that. But Tamron's 28-200mm is surprisingly good, so I'm not sure it would be an easy lens to compete with...or to undercut in price.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thankyou
Congrats on your 100K
Thanks for your great reviews Dustin, one of the best tests here! Hope at some point you will also produce Nikon Z content, it would for sure help your channel to grow as well.
Hi Dirk, I'm afraid I don't have time to add yet another system to my review schedule.
Dustin, did you try switching on sony full frame to crop sensor so you'd get more reach that 70mm?
Yes, but the optical performance won't be any different as you are essentially just cropping the full frame image in camera.
The reason I ask is that I thought if you have a full frame and the option of crop sensor, you'd get an "extra" reach/zoom/angle since the conversion is x1.6 can you please show us sample picture?same place,same angle but one shot on full frame and the second on crop sensor (same camera & lense)
It's actually 1.5, and you can get that in any sample by cropping in by about that amount.
Hi Dustin, would you recommend this lens over the Tamron 28-75 G2? Thanks!
I wouldn't. The Tamron G2 delivers much more special images.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you!
The sigma zoom ring rotates the opposite way than most. Why?
Sigma used that direction always when developing for DSLRs (it matched Canon's rotation, but not Nikons). For some reason they have stuck with it when developing for Sony and Leica, though I think that both companies rotate the opposite direction. That's a valid point to raise, though.
@@DustinAbbottTWI if it is your only zoom no big deal. It would be worse on a telephoto zoom used for action photos. I wonder how pricier it would be to make 2 versions. They should honor the customs of the mount it is made for.
I agree on your latter point.
Thank you for the review :) I have the good ol' Tammy, and the only thing that drives me towards the Sigma, is the size of this lens, as I have A7C and in my case size matters, smaller the better (for travels and vlogging). But since I travel a lot (or at least, used to before covid) in Asia, humid conditions and rain, the Tammy offers better sealings. So maybe I will look for the new Tammy 28-75 G2, which is actually a tad smaller and has a new focus technology (which I hope is better in the regards of focus breathing in video. We'll see). Thanks again
I'm testing the G2 right now, and it is pretty amazing.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Exciting! Any upcoming video of this? If, eagerly waiting for the results :)
Over the next few weeks I'll be covering both the 35-150 and the G2.
This is a real tough decision but I think I will go with the new Sigma.
I travel a ton and only carry two lenses, the Tammy 17-28mm and the Tammy 28-75mm. I got the A7C so the body and the two lenses can fit nicely in my very small camera bag (5L) as I travel the world.
However, that extra 17mm length on the Tammy 28-75mm can be annoying. The 17-28 is relatively the same size as the new Sigma 28-70mm which would fit perfectly. I hope I don’t regret my decision as I do shoot in light rain and beaches sometime and the new Sigma isn’t truly weather sealed!
I guess another option is to keep the Tamron 28-75mm and get a slightly bigger bag, but that also defeats the travel light philosophy. Le Sigh, so many first world problems. Lol.
Also, another great review, why I subscribed. Thanks.
Your case study is one I considered as a valid reason where someone might choose the Sigma over the Tamron. I'm not sure one could make that decision based purely on performance alone.
@Nicholas Nguyen Did you go to sigma 2870 from tammy? I'm very concerned with this problem... I really wanna listen to your opinion!!
@@여하명 yes i went with the 28-70 from sigma because the size is more important to me!
Don't want to nitpick but two minor corrections. First of all in your first scene you call it the "sigma 24-70" lens. Then later you say it's 70% lighter. Which makes it 56% of the weight of the bigger brother or 44% lighter.
Hi Ryan, your first point is true, though there is an on screen correct. Secondly, 835 is a 77.659574468085% increase of 470. Math can be tricky depending on how you set up your calculation.
@@DustinAbbottTWI that makes the art 77% more heavy than the contemporary but not the contemporary 77% lighter 🙃. I agree that math can be funny sometimes!
Regardless, wonderful comparison as always!
Some reviews are saying that at high resolution (42-60mpxl) the Sigma 24-70 perform a bit better then this 28-70mm and much better then the tamron...
I did extensive comparisons at 42MP between the 24-70 and the Tamron, and there was some give and take. Definitely not "much better"
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks for your reply , great review as always :-) Another hard choice to do :-)
Have yet to listen to the full review. Have been very strong Sigma supporter since introduction of original Art glass.
Am concerned that this, and other lens also announced are for Sony E mount.
Trust Sigma release these lens for other mainstream brands.
I'm afraid there isn't much design energy for EF and F mount anymore. I'm just hoping that Sigma adopts RF and Z mount.
I would like to know if the new Sony kit lens (28-60mm) has a comparable performance to the Sigma 28-70 (particularly at f5,6 and f8). Compactness (as a travel photographer) is very important to me, but also quality. Thanks for your excellent reviews.
I would say that yes, the sharpness is similar. It won't have as nice of bokeh.
Thank you very much. As for bokeh, I rely in my 45mm f1,8 that I bought after watching your review.
Obviously, virtually all of these comments are personal and relate to the type of photography, comment posters shoot. In my case, FWIW, I would really, really miss that loss of 4 mm at the wide-angle end. Would happily accept the loss of the 4 mm at the zoom end. Does the reduction of the wide angle focal range from 24 to 28 account for the really, really significant reduction in body size and weight of this lens compared to the Sigma 24-70 2.8? If so, and I clearly know little of lens design, if I was to purchase this or the Tamron lens, would need a wide angle, eg. Samyang/Rokinion manual focus lens for the loss of that, to me, very important wide-angle view.
Hi Robert, yes, excluding that 4mm is what allows for the size reduction. The Tamron utilized that same philosophy, though Tamron did a better job of also reducing vignette and distortion by cutting off that extra width. So, if you need 24mm, the Sigma 24-70mm is the better option.
I hope sigma adopts this lens for apsc.
You can use this for apsc also. I dont see the reasons to make one apsc specific unless it was for a much cheaper price.
In what way? You could mount it on APS-C already. An equivalent focal range on APS-C would be something like 18-46mm, which is not particularly attractive. An 18-50 or 18-55mm is more likely, but that wouldn't be an adapted lens
Sigma already makes a 17-70mm 2.8 for APS-C
As others said you can already use this on their apsc cameras. They use the same mount. But why would you? Get the sigma 18-35 f1.8 for your apsc camera. It's a gorgeous and very useful lens.
Hi Dustin, is Sigma 28-70 parfocal? I'm considering it for gimbal work, thanks in advance!
Hmmm, I'm not sure I tested that. I'm a stills guy primarily
@@DustinAbbottTWI got it, thanks~
I saw the Chris Frost review of this lens and on his copy, 70 mm was awful; not usable for me. The Tamron I had was absolutely amazing - regret selling it
Really? That's surprising, actually. He and I test on basically the same sensor (RII vs RIII)
I remembered that this issue happens with close up shot. But same feeling on me :'(
It's definitely not good up close.
If your decision is bnased on the fact that one lens is 14mm shorter than the other, well I think you need to garb hold of yourself by the shoulders and give yourself a shake..............
For many shooters, yes, but if you plan to travel using something like a 5L messenger bag...
The sigma is better looking but the Tamron at the end may be the better buy. It would be nice to see a few real world photos to compare them. Same portrait subject and landscape. What is the color rendering difference? There are factors that matter most than absolute sharpness. Color rendition, transition of focus, contrast etc. great review.
Hi Stefano, fair enough, but this video isn't really a comparison video. It's a review of the Sigma.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks for the review. I was wondering if you had compared them. In the end, better overall rendition may be better than absolute sharpness.
@4:03 "I don't see any Dustin inside"
All you'd see is a tripod.
The quality of the lens is questioned , now in recall
Interesting. I hadn't heard that.
He kinda reminds me of Michael Franzese.
Ahhh, that mobster vibe ;)
Awesome lens, but that distortion is seriously gross.
Yes...though not unusually so for a zoom that includes wide angle.
@@DustinAbbottTWI And I'd wager that a lens this small and fast is almost in its own category.
Very good video, For me TAMRON is the best
Fair enough. It's a great lens.
Why don't they make 24-60 rather than 28-70? 28mm very sucks
the wider you go, the more optical or size compromises you have to make.
I remember a few decade ago. Sigma had 24-60 f2.8. Very old old lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Panasonic 24-60 is very small and light weight
@@HK-rc1fg I doubt the Panasonic 24-60 is full frame. And if it is full frame I doubt it is f/2.8 the whole way through. I don’t think you understand your optics. No such thing as a small 24-60mm f/2.8 full frame. That is why they make 28mm to start with, to stay small.
There is a Panasonic 20-60mm, but it is a budget variable aperture zoom that goes from F3.5-5.6. Not the same kind of thing at all.
It Seems Sony Lenses actually Suck... coz all third party are afraid to make Z mount or RF mount lenses coz they r really Great which they cant match......
I'm afraid none of that is true. Sony has a relatively open source platform that anyone can develop for. Canon and Nikon have (thus far) been very closed and have not given any access to their focus algorithms. We will see that third party development eventually, but it has nothing to do with Sigma or Tamron being intimidated by Canon or Nikon's lenses.
@@DustinAbbottTWI it was just a query......
@@umeshbreed9922 sounded more like a statement
I agree on this. In an industry where sales keep dropping year by year, Canon and Nikon can't afford to be too protectionist. Sony has proven that having a more open platform encourages development and market share. Nikon in particular has a lot to lose, as they have the least cash reserves and smallest market share, and I'm not sure there is any area where they are considered the innovation leader at the moment.